Is the Bible incomplete?

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 14 Jul 2020, 19:19

Palfree wrote: ↑14 Jul 2020, 17:35 I don't believe the Bible is complete. There are some verses in the Bible which mention books that we don't have in our current Bibles.

If the bible itself mentions some other books to refer we have to take that into consideration

Abacus · Post by **Abacus** » 15 Jul 2020, 09:50

Aother question to ask "is the bible based on an accurate translation?"

JeanyJean · Post by **JeanyJean** » 15 Jul 2020, 11:58

Sushan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2020, 10:06 The author gives additional descriptions, which are not found in the original Bible, to the story from creating Adam and Eve, up to the worldwide flood. Most of who has studied the Bible must have had his/her own thoughts regarding these lacking parts. Does this mean that the Bible is incomplete? On the other hand, is it righteous to add after-notes to a religious book like the Bible?

The Bible is the word of God. If we argue that it is incomplete we mean that there are some things that God forgot to say. This will create a loop hole because everyone can come up with what God would have probably sai but did not. I don't think the author meant to add on the Bible. The author just usedcreativity to bring out aspects of the Bible in a more lively and real manner. He however, does stick to the core meaning and principles of the Bible.

idoreyen90 · Post by **idoreyen90** » 15 Jul 2020, 12:07

The Bible itself is a complete book that requires wisdom for one to comprehend. So it is not about the it's length, but rather it's significance.

joenduga12 · Post by **joenduga12** » 15 Jul 2020, 17:18

Well, let's say the book is fictional, that is why the writer paint it that way. Or the writer is simply trying to paint a vivid picture by filling the gap, in oder to encourage imagination. Whatever the case may be, we should all be mindful of the warning given at Revelation 22:18, 19. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” God's inspired word is complete and reliable.

Fliesie01 · Post by **Fliesie01** » 16 Jul 2020, 02:57

I don't think the Bible is incomplete, but it is scary how much it changed over time. There are a lot of translations and word get left out of the Bible, words that give another meaning to the verse, and how it is interpreted. This scares me a bit.

Doziesixtus · Post by **Doziesixtus** » 16 Jul 2020, 03:33

Nerea wrote: ↑01 Jun 2020, 14:46 I believe that the Bible is complete. When you read the book of Revelation 22:18,19 you'll realize that adding or subtracting contents into or from the Bible is not right whatsoever.

Well, of you trace the history of the Bible you'd notice the vast influx of contents into and out of different versions of the Bible. Since there isn't a generally accepted "initial"Bible, I think someone needs to be authorized to have the power to do this.

Magnify3 · Post by **Magnify3** » 16 Jul 2020, 09:43

idoreyen90 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2020, 12:07 The Bible itself is a complete book that requires wisdom for one to comprehend. So it is not about the it's length, but rather it's significance.

Definitely true! The Bible is complete but needs wisdom and revelation to understand it.

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 11:47

Sushan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2020, 10:06 Does this mean that the Bible is incomplete? On the other hand, is it righteous to add after-notes to a religious book like the Bible?

I started studying the Bible in about 1987, attended some biblical study groups lead by Greg Koukl. Greg "was" at the time a 5 point Calvinist. To me Calvinism didn't make any sense and it is not in the Bible. So I started reading all kinds of "commentaries" on the bible. Then one day I became aware of "open" theology and it changed my life. Now the bible is easy to read and understand.

In my opinion, Calvinism, Catholicism, Baptist . . . and many other domination's are nowhere in the Bible. They are all creations of men, and to some extent, man made (fictional if you will). And commentaries can be as fictional as is Killing Abel. But I have never seen a commentary that says "this is to some extent fictional", as do I in my "commentary" Killing Abel.

I am in no way against the biblical commentaries, I still like them, but commentaries are largely fictional in their conclusions. When I read commentaries I only give the conclusion standing, if or when it make sense to me.

In Killing Abel I just added the fictional characters to strengthen the biblical conclusions. It is a very different way to get the message across. Instead of reaching a fictional conclusion as is done in commentaries, I reverse it and make many a fictional support for the biblical conclusion.

I think the latter is better than the former.

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 11:59

Nerea wrote: ↑01 Jun 2020, 14:46 I believe that the Bible is complete. When you read the book of Revelation 22:18,19 you'll realize that adding or subtracting contents into or from the Bible is not right whatsoever.

I agree, you should not edit and or change the text in the Bible, to do so would be a sin.

But, is it allowed to think about what the scriptures mean? Have your thoughts added to the Bible?

If you have ever listened to a sermon, has the pastor added to the scripture with their sermon?

Is it adding or subtracting from the bible if we look at different translations?

If you have ever read a commentary on the bible have you added to the scripture?

Are you allowed to hear what others think about the scripture?

Does Revelation 22:18,19 say that we can't come together and reason like it says in Isaiah 1:18 says?

I believe both Revelation and Isaiah, fit together nicely in Killing Abel

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 12:16

[/quote]

I am glad to find someone think alike at least to some extent. Yes, there are some details that left behind, for some reason
[/quote]

RE: "for some reason"

There is one clue to that "reason" that I discovered in writing Killing Abel.

The amount of History given in the bible is symmetrical.

The amount of history (words) from Creation to the Flood / exactly 2.5 words per year.
The amount of history (words) from the flood to the Gospels / exactly 250 words per year.
The amount of history (words) From the Gospels to the end of Israel (Masada 72.5 AD) / exactly 2500 words per year.
I don't think the above is a coincidence.

10 fold and 100 fold are themes in the Bible and those themes talk about yields.
God built a foundation for us to live on and that foundation started with a small firm one in Gen: 1 through Gen: 6. Then yielded 100 fold and then 10 fold again starting out with the Gospels.
My conclusion is that God, always the good Father, starts His kids out slowly and then builds in the information given. Then expects us to figure out the rest on our own.

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 12:22

evraealtana wrote: ↑02 Jun 2020, 04:04 Biblical history would be so unwieldy as to be virtually worthless.

Very wise statement . . . As a non christian, you should reconsider "In the beginning God created . . . . It is the only place available to start a context for life.

Your wisdom came for somewhere, I encourage you to discover just where that somewhere might be

Best wishes , Michael Tieman

Miller56 · Post by **Miller56** » 16 Jul 2020, 12:31

I think the Bible is complete. It provides a documented story of the world before Christ, during Christ, and what is to come. However, "Killing Abel" is a fictional story and uses the Bible to provide information. I think that it is important to keep the two separate when we think about completeness and the author of "Killing Abel" expounding and adding to the Bible.

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 12:31

Kelebogile Mbangi wrote: ↑02 Jun 2020, 10:05 The bible is complete and contains a common theme through its 66 books. That theme is the vindication of God's sovereignty. God's right to rule was questioned by Satan in the very first bible book, Genesis.

The bible is complete in the one and only important sense. . . The Bible is all that is needed for all men to discover the way, the truth and the love of their creator. Nothing else is necessary or required. But, the bible will never be "complete" enough for a man who hates God and or denies that He exist. Never.

tieman55 · Post by **tieman55** » 16 Jul 2020, 12:48

Sushan wrote: ↑02 Jun 2020, 19:56
B Creech wrote: ↑02 Jun 2020, 10:58
Sushan wrote: ↑01 Jun 2020, 20:15

Changing the original scripture is not acceptable. Yet, if the whole thing is a fiction, can't it be taken as fair?
You're right about changing the original scripture is not acceptable. If the whole book is fiction then most would say it's fair; but I feel like it is making fun of the Bible and for me, personally, I don't think anyone should do that.
When taken in that manner, it is not a good thing to make use of the bible for fictional work

Just what are you allowed to do with interpreting the scriptures?

Can you comment in any manner on the bible?
Can you translate a verse different?
What if you disagree with a commentary on a biblical topic? Are you allowed to come up with your own commentary?

If you come up with your own interpretation and or commentary, wouldn't it be the humble thing to do to call it Fiction?

Have you ever read a commentary where the author was humble enough to call it Fiction? That is what I do in Killing Abel. Killing Abel, is basically a commentary not that much different than others. The main difference is that Killing Abel reaches the conclusion that the Bible has by using fictional characters as support. In the commentaries they reverse it, using the bible support to achieve fictional conclusions that are not documented in the text.

I believe Killing Abel is a far, far more persuasive way to get the reader to trust in what the Bible literally says.